From owner-freebsd-net Mon Oct 28 13:20:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006EE37B401 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:20:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from InterJet.elischer.org (12-232-206-8.client.attbi.com [12.232.206.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455D243E77 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:20:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25343; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:09:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:09:43 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Sean Chittenden Cc: "Carlos A. Carnero Delgado" , Kevin Stevens , freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Annoying ARP warning messages. In-Reply-To: <20021028203204.GL92719@perrin.int.nxad.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote: > > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* > > Sean Chittenden wrote: > > >... Can't say as its graceful, but it's certainly a poor-man's way > > >of getting more than 100Mbps of capacity. > > > > have you tried this? > > http://bsdvault.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=98 > > Nope, but I think I could be falling in love after having read it. > > In this example, does the xl0 interface share the same MAC address? umm actually, yes.. sends switches insane.. :-) if you don't do the step about source Mac address replacement then they have different addresses. (though I can't guarantee that) > How does this share the bandwidth over the interfaces? Just guessing, > but, I'd venture to guess that each interface has its own mac and each > interface responds to ARP requests with its own mac... The reason its a SIMPLE thing is becasue it's very limitted.. it just spits packets out in round robin.. it doesn't help at all for incoming... of course you can run 2 machine sback to back with N interfaces ganged up if you are oanly doing it in a point-to-point manner. but it falls over in other cases. It's good for a server puting out lots of data and only getting small requests.. The bulk outgoing data is spread over N interfaces but the input comes in on the interface that is publicly known. > what I don't > understand is how the ARP requests are handled. Is it just a 1st > come, 1st serve? By that I mean that the interface that responds > first wins? I thought the switch had an ARP table and that you > couldn't have multiple mac's per IP.... I'm confused as to how this'd > work. :) If there's one MAC address that's shared/spoofed by the > netgraph interface, then how does the switch decide what port to send > the data out of? doesn't work well with switches.. works great with hubs.. for (cisco) switches use the ng_nge code Bill Paul wrote.. the switch knows how to handle that. > > Confused, > Sean > > -- > Sean Chittenden > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message